dismissed L-1B Case: Shipbuilding

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 0 8 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
'U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) 
ON BEHALF OF 
PETITIONER: 
. INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~osenberg 
. Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, initially approved the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
director subsequently issued a notice of intent to revoke the approval of the petition and ultimately issued a notice 
of revocation due to the petitioner's failure to overcome the grounds for revocation. The matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, to classify the beneficiary as an L-
1B intracompany transferee pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L). The petitioner, a North Carolina corporation established in February 2007, 
states that it engages in "shipbuilding related consulting service." It claims to be a subsidiary of 
located in China. The petitioner seeks to extend the 
employment of the beneficiary in t e specialized knowledge position of "shipfitter supervisor" at an offsite 
work location. The petitioner failed to specifically identify the actual work location of the beneficiary. 
The director initially approved the petition for a one-and-a-half year period commencing on April 15, 2012. 
The director issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke ("NOIR") the approved petition on October 31, 2012. In the 
NOIR, the director notified the petitioner that the Fraud Prevention Unit at the Kentucky Consular Center 
(KCC) has identified and refused visas to a number of the petitioner;s applicants because they found that the 
knowledge possessed by the applicants could not be considered an advanced level of expertise in the 
organization's processes and procedures, or special knowledge of the organization, which is not readily 
available in the United States. Additionally, the Fraud Prevention Unit of the KCC visited the foreign entity 
where the corporate HR department was unable to confirm a number of applicants ever worked for the foreign 
entity. The Fraud Prevention Unit also noted that several of the applicants did not speak English, gave 
conflicting statements regarding work history, and were unable to describe their prospective position in the 
United States or its location. 
The director revoked the approval of the instant petition on four alternate grounds, concluding that the 
petitioner failed to establish that: (1) the beneficiary is a "professional" as defined in 101(a)(32) of the INA; 
(2) the beneficiary has specialized knowledge and would be employed in a capacity involving specialized 
knowledge; (3) the beneficiary worked for the qualifying foreign entity for one continuous year in the three 
years preceding admission to the United States; and (4) the placement of the beneficiary at the worksite ofthe 
unaffiliated employer is not merely labor for hire. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and 
forwarded the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) failed to consider information submitted in support of the petition and 
misapplied the proper legal standard in its analysis. Counsel submits a brief and additional evidence in 
support of the appeal. 
I. THE LAW 
To establish eligibility for the L-1 nonimmigrant visa classification, the petitioner must meet the criteria 
outlined in section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Specifically, a qualifying organization must have employed the 
beneficiary in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a specialized knowledge capacity, for one 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
continuous year within the three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United 
States. 1 In addition, the beneficiary must seek to enter the U.S. temporarily to continue rendering his or her 
services to the same employer or a parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of the foreign employer. 
Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B), provides the statutory definition of specialized 
knowledge: 
For purposes of section 10l(a)(15)(L), an alien is considered to be serving in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a special knowledge 
of the company product and its application in international markets or has an advanced level of 
knowledge of processes and procedures of the company. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D) defines specialized knowledge as: 
[S]pecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization's product, 
service, research, equipment, techniques, management or other interests and its application in 
international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the organization's 
processes 
and procedures. 
As added by the L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2004, section 214(c)(2)(F) of the Act states: 
(F) An alien who will serve in a capacity involving specialized knowkdge with respect to an 
employer for purposes of section 101(a)(15)(L) and will be stationed primarily at the 
worksite of an employer other than the petitioning employer or its affiliate, subsidiary, 
or parent shall not be eligible for classification under section 101(a)(15)(L) if-
(i) the alien will be controlled and supervised principally by such unaffiliated 
employer; or 
(ii) the placement of the alien at the worksite of the unaffiliated employer is 
essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire for the unaffiliated 
employer, rather than a placement in connection with the provision of a product 
or service for which specialized knowledge to the petitioning employer is 
necessary. 
See section 412(a), Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 108-447, Div. I, Title IV, 118 Stat. 2809 (Dec. 
8, 2004). Section 214(c)(2)(F) of the Act is applicable to all L-lB petitions filed after June 6, 2005, including 
petition extensions and amendments for individuals that are currently in L-lB status. /d. at§ 412(b). 
1 If the beneficiary will be serving the United States employer in a managerial or executive capacity, a qualified 
beneficiary may be classified as an L-lA nonimmigrant alien. If a qualified beneficiary will be rendering services in a 
capacity that involves "specialized knowledge," the beneficiary may be classified as an L-lB nonimmigrant alien. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
II. THE ISSUES ON APPEAL 
A. Employment in a Specialized Capacity 
The first issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and would be employed in the United States in a position that requires specialized 
knowledge. 
The petitioner stated on the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, that it has 43 current 
employees in the United States. On the Form 1-129 Supplement L, the petitioner described the beneficiary's 
proposed duties in the United States as follows: ,"Provide c:Onsulting services to U.S. shipyards regarding the 
techniques and strategies employed in creating shipfitting plans and supervising shipfitting staff." In 
support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a two-page letter describing its current projects and the 
beneficiary's qualifications, in pertinent part, as follows: "As a result of his experience with our parent 
company, [the beneficiary] is qualified to serve in the capacity of a specialized worker as a Shipfitter 
Supervisor." 
The petitioner did· not provide any additional description or information relating to the beneficiary's 
specialized or advanced knowledge or his proposed duties in the United States. 
In the NOIR, the director instructed the petitioner to submit a detailed description of the beneficiary's duties at 
the U.S. company, a list of proposed duties that require specialized knowledge, an explanation as to why each 
of the beneficiary's duties requires specialized knowledge, an identification of which processes, procedures, 
tools, and/or methods the beneficiary will use and how they are specific to the petitioner, an identification of 
how long it takes to train an employee to use the specific tools, procedures, and/or methods utilized by the 
beneficiary and how many workers possess such training, and an explanation of exactly how the beneficiary's 
training differs from the core training provided to other employees. The director also requested a record from 
the foreign entity detailing how the beneficiary has gained his specialized knowledge, to include all pertinent 
training courses that the beneficiary has taken while employed at the foreign entity. 
In response to the NOIR, the petitioner submitted a letter describing the beneficiary's daily duties as follows: 
[The beneficiary's] work for [the petitioner] is based on these revolutionary techniques 
developed by our parent company. His work involves the following sub-fields of the 
shipbuilding process: 
• Vertical/Horizontal position welding 
• Manually welding of a flat plate 
• Confined space welding 
• Welding of tugboat tail shaft 
• Cross welding of 4 parts 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
He provides consulting services to various shipyards in the United States, including 
supervising and coordinating the activities of workers engaged in welding and cutting of 
products and structures. He applies this knowledge of welding and cutting techniques, as 
well as the use of the proper materials, equipment, and fabrication requirements. Also, based 
on our revolutionary techniques, he analyzes the work orders and blueprints of local 
shipyards in order to determine the need for supplies and sequence of operations required. 
He is therefore involved in the requisition of supplies, such as weld rods, gas, flux, and 
fixtures. He also trains local workers in the operation of equipment so .that the jobs are 
performed by local individuals rather than less efficient machines. He supervises the fitting 
and assembly of structural frames, and also supervises workers in electric-weld jobs, such as 
making tubing from flat steel strips by electric-weld. 
All of these jobs that he performs stem from the specialized techniques developed by our 
parent company. Workers trained in U.S. shipyards simply do not have access to these types 
of production techniques, and therefore our consulting services are in high demand. 
The petitioner's letter went on to provide the following comparison of the beneficiary's training to other 
employees as follows: 
Please be advised that [the beneficiary's] specialized training from our parent company is 
similar to the other employees that work for Our company. The purpose of [the petitioner] is 
to provide administrative control and oversight of specialized workers from our parent 
company, [the foreign entity]. ... Therefore, the beneficiary's training does not differ from 
our other employees, who are also present in the United States under L1B status. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity, dated November 20, 2012, describing the 
beneficiary's employment history, qualifications, training, and expertise acquired while employed at the 
foreign entity. The letter states that the beneficiary was employed at one of the foreign entity's affiliate 
companies as a "shipfitter" from January 1998 to October 2006, and in October 2006, the beneficiary was 
transferred to the foreign entity as "shipfitter" through December 2007. In August 2008, the beneficiary was 
again employed at the foreign entity and assumed the position of "shipfitting supervisor." The letter described 
his duties in the most recent position as follows: 
His main responsibilities and duties are included the following [sic]: 
) 
• Evaluate existing methods and develop more efficient ship fitting procedures. 
• Work execution according to the valid quality standards. 
• New layouts, fabrication, assembly find installation works. 
• Diagnose, troubleshoot, and solve ship-fitting problem. 
In October 2009, he was transferred to our affiliate in the United States, [the petitioner], to 
serve as a Shipfitting supervisor. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The letter went on to describe the beneficiary's qualifications and trammg. The letter stated that the 
beneficiary obtained a "high level skilled shipfitter certificate issued by " It 
states that the certification includes the completion of several exams and evaluations through the "certificated 
institute" and provides the proper, objective, and scientific observation and evaluation of a worker's welding 
technique. The letter did not indicate when the beneficiary obtained this certification. The letter also states 
that the beneficiary attended the "21st advance-level training program" by the foreign entity from October 11, 
2006 to August 23, 2007. ·The letter states that this is a private training course provided by the foreign entity 
to train their first-line supervisors. The letter goes on to describe its "skill training system," but does not 
specifically describe any courses, particularly the training course the beneficiary attended for 10 months and 
12 days. The letter then described the beneficiary's "nature of expertise," stating that his special knowledge is 
derived from his 13 years of experience at the foreign entity. The letter states that of the foreign entity's 
50,000 skilled workers, about 5% have made training advancements similar to the beneficiary. The letter 
states that the beneficiary's training includes an expertise in specific methods of vertical and horizontal 
welding, which the beneficiary will teach to local welders in the United States. The letter states that the 
beneficiary is one of its highly-skilled workers and based on his training and experience , he has knowledge of 
shipbuilding techniques that only a small percentage of employees have. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's training completion certificate of the 2151 advance-level 
training program by the foreign entity. 
The director revoked the approval of the petition on June 13, 2013 concluding, in part, that the petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge and would be employed in a capacity 
involving specialized knowledge. In revoking the approval of the petition, the director found that the 
petitioner failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's listed training was special or advanced in relation to 
other welders in the industry or within the petitioner's organization. The director observed that the petitioner 
stated that 5% of its 50,000 skilled workers received the advanced training held by the beneficiary, but the 
director found that experience alone does not equate .to advanced or specialized knowledge and the training 
received by the beneficiary does not appear specialized or advanced in relation to others as it appears all 
welders take the same training. The director further found that the petitioner's claimed technological 
accomplishments were not supported by documentation from industry sources who recognize such techniques 
as specialized or advanced. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner simply asserts that "the letter from :dated July 11, 2013 . 
. . serves as documentation from an industry source recognizing the foreign employer's technological 
accomplishments, and in turn the beneficiary's techniques as specialized and advanced." Counsel submits a 
letter from dated July 11, 2013, stating that it has been using the services of the petitioner 
because the techniques developed by the Chinese shipyard are unique within the industry. The letter states 
that is contracting with the petitioner in order to learn how to implement the petitioner's 
welding techniques into its own production. 
Upon review, counsel's 
assertions are not persuasive. The AAO finds insufficient evidence to establish that 
the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge or wilf be employed in a position requiring specialized 
knowledge. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
In order to establish eligibility for the L-lB visa classification, the petitioner must show that the individual 
has been and will be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity. 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The statutory 
definition of specialized knowledge at section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act is comprised of two equal but distinct 
subparts. First, an individual is considered to be employed in a capacity involving specialized knowledge if 
that person "has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in international markets." 
Second; an individual is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge if that person 
"has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company." See also 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(1)(ii)(D). The petitioner may establish eligibility by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and 
the proffered position satisfy either prong of the definition. 
USCIS cannot make a factual determination regarding the beneficiary's specialized knowledge if the 
petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, 
describe how such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the 
beneficiary gained such knowledge. Once the petitioner articulates the nature of the claimed specialized 
knowledge, it is the weight and type of evide~ce which establishes whether or not the beneficiary actually 
possesses specialized knowledge. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). The director 
must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true. 
/d. 
As both "special" and "advanced" are relative terms, determining whether a given beneficiary's knowledge is 
"special" or "advanced" inherently requires a comparison of the beneficiary's knowledge against that of others 
in the petitioning company and/or against others holding comparable positions in the industry. The ultimate 
question is whether the petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the beneficiary's knowledge or expertise is special or advanced, and that the beneficiary's position requires 
such knowledge. 
Turning to the question of whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary possesses specialized 
knowledge and will be employed in a capacity requiring specialized knowledge, upon review, the petitioner 
has not demonstrated that this employee possesses knowledge that may be deemed "special" or "advanced" 
under the statutory definition at section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, or that the petitioner will employ the 
beneficiary in a capacity requiring specialized knowledge. 
In examining the specialized knowledge of the beneficiary, the AAO will look to the petitioner's description of 
the job duties and the weight of the evidence supporting any asserted specialized knowledge. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(1)(3)(ii). The petitioner must submit a detailed job description of the services to be performed sufficient 
to establish specialized knowledge. /d. Merely asserting that the beneficiary possesses "special" or "advanced" 
knowledge will not suffice to meet the petitioner's burden of proof. 
In the present matter, the petitioner has not submitted a position description or list of job duties for the proposed 
position in the United States that adequately describes the beneficiary's actual tasks on a daily basis. The 
petitioner has not described any duties that would require the beneficiary to possess knowledge not possessed 
by other similarly experienced shipfitter welders working at the foreign entity. The petitioner repeatedly 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
state·s that the welding techniques internally developed by the foreign entity are specialized or advanced 
enough to warrant the beneficiary possessing specialized knowledge due to his training and experience in the 
described welding techniques. The petitioner also provides contradictory statements in comparing the 
beneficiary's training to its other employees. In response to the NOIR, the petitioner's letter states that the 
beneficiary's specialized training from the foreign entity is similar to the other employees that work for the 
company. In the foreign entity's letter, it states that, of the 50,000 skilled workers, about 5% have made training 
advancements similar to the beneficiary. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in 
the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will 
not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In response to the NOIR, the petitioner provided a letter from the foreign entity stating that the beneficiary 
received advanced training from the foreign entity, specifically a course with duration of 10 months and 12 
days. The letter did not list any additional information regarding this training, including course curriculum, 
basic requirements to be eligible for the training, or the skills obtained in completing the training. 
Considering that the beneficiary would have been in training for almost an entire year, the petitioner could 
have provided some information describing the actual courses and skills learned throughout the training. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is riot sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner does not make any statements in regards to this issue. Rather, counsel 
refers the AAO to a letter from stating that the petitioner's welding techniques are unique 
within the industry, and that the petitioner is teaching how to implement the techniques into 
their production. This statement, coupled with the petitioner's own statement that one of the beneficiary's 
duties will be to train local workers, indicates that the welding skills obtained by the beneficiary and other 
petitioner staff is not sufficiently specialized and can be readily learned by other individuals who otherwise 
possess the requisite technical background in shipbuilding and welding. Therefore, the AAO cannot determine 
that ,the beneficiary possesses a level of knowledge that is special or advanced within the company or the industry. 
Based on the petitioner's representations, it appears that its specialized welding processes and methodologies, 
while highly effective and valuable to the petitioner and the foreign entity, are skills that can be readily 
learned on-the-job and through training from the beneficiary to local workers at client sites, as stated in the 
petitioner's description of the beneficiary's position. For this reason, the petitioner has not established that 
knowledge of its processes and procedures alone constitute specialized knowledge. 
Furthermore, the petitioner does not provide sufficient information relating to the beneficiary's position 
abroad. On the Form I-129 Supplement L, where asked to describe the beneficiary's duties abroad, the 
petitioner stated "supervise workers engaged in working on high-pressure systems; train new workers in use 
of equipment and tools; perform duties as described under SUPERVISOR Master Title; inspect completed 
processing systems to determine conformance to specifications; develop new or modify current welding 
methods, techniques and procedures; [and] do new layouts, fabrication, assemble and installation works 
[sic]." According to a letter from the foreign entity, the beneficiary performed the same or similar duties 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
abroad as those of the proffered position. As determined above, these duties do not involve specialized 
knowledge. As such, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's position abroad involved 
specialized knowledge. 
The AAO does not dispute that the beneficiary is a skilled and experienced employee who has been, and 
·would be, a valuable asset to the petitioner. However, as explained above, the evidence does not distinguish 
the beneficiary's knowledge as more advanced than the knowledge possessed by other people employed by 
the petitioning organization or by workers employed elsewhere. The beneficiary's duties and technical skills, 
while impressive, demonstrate that he possesses knowledge that is common among shipfitting welders and 
supervisors at the foreign entity. Furthermore, it is not clear that the performance of the beneficiary's duties 
would require more than basic proficiency with the company's internal welding processes and methodologies. 
Although the petitioner repeatedly claims that the beneficiary's knowledge is specialized, the petitioner failed 
to provide independent and objective evidence to corroborate such claims. Again, going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
It is reasonable to conclude, and has not been shown otherwise, that all shipfitting welders and supervisors 
assigned to the petitioner and their clients must use the same processes and methodologies to train the local 
staff of its clients. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the beneficiary's training, work experience, 
or knowledge of the company's processes is advanced in comparison to that possessed by others employed 
by the petitioner, or that the processes used by the petitioner are substantially different from those used by 
other shipbuilding companies, such that knowledge of such processes alone constitutes specialized 
knowledge. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility . . Matter of Brantigan, 11 
I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary is 
fully qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. In evaluating the evidence, 
eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. /d. 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and will be employed in a specialized knowledge 
capacity with the petitioner in the United States. See Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
B. Employment Abroad for One Year 
The second issue addressed by the director is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary had at 
least one year of full-time employment with a qualifying foreign entity within the three-year period preceding 
the beneficiary's admission to the U.S., as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(iii). 
On the Form I-129, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary commenced employment with the foreign entity 
on October 11, 2009. Where asked to describe the beneficiary's duties for the three years preceding the 
beneficiary's admission to the U.S., the petitioner stated the following: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
• supervise workers engaged in working on high-pressure systems 
• train new workers in use of equipment and tools 
• perform duties as described under SUPERVISOR Master Title 
• inspect completed processing systems to determine conformance to specifications 
• develop new or modify current welding methods, techniques and procedures 
• do new layouts, fabrication, assemble and installation works [sic] 
In the NOIR, the director instructed the petitioner to submit payroll documents as evidence of the 
beneficiary's employment abroad and that the payroll documents should establish that the beneficiary was 
employed by a qualifying organization and that the employment was full-time for one continuous year within 
the three years prior to October 11, 2009. The director specifically requested that, based on the KCC's 
findings, the petitioner should provide documentation from the foreign employer on company letter and 
government tax documents identifying the foreign company as the beneficiary's employer. 
In response to the NOIR, the petitioner submitted a letter from the foreign entity, dated November 20, 2012, 
stating that the beneficiary was employed at one of the foreign entity's affiliate companies as a "shipfitter" 
from January 1998 to October 2006, and in October 2006, the beneficiary was transferred to the foreign entity 
as "shipfitter" through December 2007. In August 2008, the beneficiary was again employed at the foreign 
entity and assumed the position of "shipfitting supervisor." The petitioner did not provide any information 
about the beneficiary's employment from December 2007 to August 2008. 
The petitioner submitted a translation of a salary report for the foreign entity from December 2006 to 
November 2007. The translated document shows the beneficiary's name, the month and year, and total 
amount due in RMB. The translated document does not specifically identify the actual source of the report, 
who compiled the report, or the run date of the report. The petitioner also submitted the beneficiary's Forms 
W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for 2010 and 2011 indicating that the beneficiary was employed by the 
petitioner in the U.S. in those years. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from Manage , dated November 17, 2012, addressing the KCC's 
visit to the foreign entity's office in China on February 8, 2012. In the letter, states that he "served as 
the host of the meeting and was present during the entire meeting" and the information provided in the NOIR 
is "completely inaccurate." states that the KCC officers had a list of names and asked 
manager of human resources, to check the computer system in order to verify that the names on the list were 
employees of the foreign entity. states that Mr. verified that all of the names listed were 
employees of the foreign entity and printed an official statement for the KCC officers including the name of 
the worker, their occupation, dates they worked for the company, and the name of their supervisors. 
states that the KCC officers asked if the listed employees were all first-line supervisors and they answered 
"yes, they are. group leaders." 'tates that the KCC officers asked if the listed employees would have 
difficulty working for the subsidiary in the U.S. due to limited .English skills and they answered "no because 
they are needed for their ship-building techniques, and a translator would be necessary only in limited 
circumstances." then states that the KCC officers concluded the meeting at that point and said that 
there was no problem and that they would process the pending visa applications as soon as possible. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
The director revoked the approval of the petition concluding, in part, that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the beneficiary worked for the qualifying foreign entity for one continuous year in the three years preceding 
admission to the United States. In revoking the approval of the petition, the director observed that the 
petitioner's evidence of the beneficiary's employment at the qualifying foreign entity solely consisted of a 
copy of the beneficiary's 2009 salary report.2 The director found that "[b]ased on the concerns identified by 
the Fraud Prevention Unit at the Kentucky Consular Center (KCC) in regards to [the petitioner's] employees[1 
employment with the qualifying foreign employer ... an internally generated salary report for one year, alone 
is not sufficient. ... " 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that "the service's dismissal of a salary report by the foreign 
entity is unduly restrictive [and that] the foreign employer is a Chinese State-Owned Enterprise (SOE), and as 
such any document issued by the employer carries the authority of the Chinese government." Counsel further 
asserts that the documentation from the submitted on 
appeal, serves as documentation of the beneficiary's employment that is not internally generated by the 
foreign employer. 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner submits a translation of a report titled, ' 
for the year 2008. The translated document shows the name of the 
company as the foreign entity and lists the beneficiary's name, year, month, and additional insurance payment 
numbers. 
Upon review, the evidence in the record is not persuasive. Here, the KCC Fraud Prevention Unit identified 
concerns with the foreign entity's human resource department and its ability to verify the employment of its 
employees overseas. In response to the NOIR, the petitioner submitted an internally generated payroll 
summary allegedly from the foreign entity indicating that the beneficiary was paid from December 2006 to 
November 2007. The petitioner has not submitted documentary evidence substantiating the accuracy or 
completeness of this summary. The translated document does not include an identifying source and the run 
date of the summary, and there is no indication it is certified by the foreign entity. The petitioner also 
submitted a letter from disputing the KCC Fraud Prevention Unit's findings upon their visit to the 
foreign entity, but failed to submit any tangible evidence to );i_upport the dispute. Without documentary 
evidence to support the claim, the assertions of one individual will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Con:tm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm'r 1972)). 
In support of the appeal, counsel for the petitioner simply submits a translated report from the insurance fund 
indicating that some sort of payment was made for the beneficiary in 2008. This document is not sufficient 
evidence of the beneficiary's employment at the foreign entity. The insurance fund summary bears no 
explanation as to how it relates to the foreign entity or how it proves that the beneficiary was employed by the 
foreign entity, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary had at least one year of full-time 
2 The director's reference should have been to the foreign entity's salary report from December 2006 to November 2007, 
a time period covering only 11 months, not one-year. This is the only salary report from the foreign entity in the record. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
employment with a qualifying foreign entity within the three-year period preceding the beneficiary's 
admission to the U.S., as required by 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(ii). Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide 
any information about the beneficiary's employment from December 2007 to August 2008, yet the insurance 
fund summary includes information for January through July of 2008, without any clarification as to the 
beneficiary's actual employment during that time. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability ~nd sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of 
the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). It is incumbent upon the petitioner to 
resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Due to the inconsistencies and deficiencies listed above, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
had at least one year of full-time employment with a qualifying foreign entity within the three-year period 
preceding the filing of the petition. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
C. L-1 Visa Reform Act 
The last issue addressed by the director is whether the placement of the beneficiary at the unaffiliated 
employer's worksite is an arrangement to provide labor for hire in violation of section 214(c)(2)(F)(ii)of the 
Act. 
The Form 1-129 solicits information specifically related to the proscriptions created by the L-1 Visa Reform 
Act. On the Form 1-129 Supplement L, at Section 1 Question 13, the form asks if the beneficiary would be 
stationed primarily offsite at the worksite of an unaffiliated employer. If the petitioner answers this question 
in the affirmative, the form then solicits information regarding: 1) how and by whom the beneficiary will be 
controlled and supervised; and 2) the reasons why placement at another worksite is necessary, including a 
description of how the beneficiary's duties relate to the need for his or her specialized knowledge. 
The petitioner answered "yes," indicating the beneficiary would be stationed primarily offsite at the worksite 
of an unaffiliated employer, and answered each question as follows: 
The beneficiary will be supervised solely by the President of [the petitioner], Mr. 
and the executive committee of [the foreign entity] in China .... 
The beneficiary will spend time at numerous shipyards across the United States providing 
consulting services in [the foreign entity's] techniques .... 
The petitioner did not provide any additional information relating to the beneficiary's placement at an offsite 
location. 
In the NOIR, the director instructed the petitioner to submit a copy of the contract for services between the 
petitioner and the employer where the beneficiary· will be primarily stationed. The director specifically 
instructed the petitioner that if the contract does not contain information specific to the terms and conditions 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
of the beneficiary's employment, the petitioner should submit an addendum establishing who retains the 
authority to hire and fire the beneficiary, who is responsible for administering the beneficiary's time and pay, 
and to what degree the beneficiary will be controlled and supervised by the offsite employer, rather than the 
petitioner. 
In response to the NOIR, the petitioner submitted an "Employee Leasing Agreement ," dated February 7, 
2011, between and the petitioner. The agreement specifically states that the petitioner is to 
provide a "Chinese welding supervisor with specialized knowledge on various projects." The agreement 
addresses the control of employees as follows: 
ARTICLE 7. CONTROL OF EMPLOYEES: [The petitioner]. 
Assumes responsibility for the payment of wages of employees without regard to payments 
by the Client Company to [the petitioner].--
1, Assumes responsibility for the payment of payroll taxes and collection of taxes from 
payroll on employees;--
2, Retains the right to hire, fire, discipline, and reassign employees, and;--
3, Retains the right of direction and control over the management of Wroker=s [sic] 
Compensation claims, claim filings and related procedures. 
The petitioner also submitted a "Master Service Agreement No. dated April 26, 2012, between 
LLC and the petitioner. The agreement merely provides a method for 
LLC to "establish and maintain a list of eligible contractors and to offer work or contracts only to those 
contractors who are included on such approved list;" it does not establish a specific agreement for work or 
labor with the petitioner. The agreement specifically states that LLC "shall have no right 
or authority to supervise or give instructions to the employees, agents, or representative of [the petitioner]." 
The director revoked the approval of the petition concluding, in part, that the petitioner failed to establish that 
the placement of the beneficiary at the worksite of the unaffiliated employer is not merely labor for hire. In 
revoking the approval of the petition, the director found that it appears from the contracts provided that the 
placement of the beneficiary outside the petitioning organization is essentially an arrangement to provide 
labor for hire rather than the placement in connection with the provision of a product or service. The director 
found that the service the petitioner is providing is, essentially, technical support and enhancement to the 
client's pre-existing shipbuilding processes and methodologies. The director further found that the knowledge 
the beneficiary possesses appears to be that of the petitioner's tools, procedures, and methodologies to be 
applied to the client's existing processes and methodologies, and therefore, may only be tangentially related to 
the performance of the proposed offsite activity. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner did not address this issue. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Upon review, the petitioner has not established that the placement of .the beneficiary at the unaffiliated 
employer's worksite meets the conditions of Section 214( c )(2)(F)(ii) of the Act. 
The L-1 Visa Reform Act amendment was intended to prohibit the outsourcing of L-1B intracompany 
transferees to unaffiliated employers to work with "widely available" computer software and, thus, help 
prevent the displacement of United States workers by foreign labor. See 149 Cong. Rec. S11649, *S11686, 
2003 WL 22143105 (September 17, 2003); see also Sen. Jud. Comm., Sub. on Immigration, Statement for 
Chairman Senator Saxby Chambliss, ·July 29, 2003, available at 
http://www .judiciary .senate.gov /hearings/testimony .cfm ?id=4fle0899533f7680e78d03281fef82ef&wit_id=4f 
1e0899533f7680e78d03281fef82ef-0-3 (accessed on April28, 2014). 
If a specialized knowledge beneficiary will be primarily stationed at the worksite of an unaffiliated employer, 
the statute mandates that the petitioner establish both: (1) that the beneficiary will be controlled and 
supervised principally by the petitioner, and (2) that the placement is related to the provision of a product or 
service for which specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning employer is necessary. Section 
214(c)(2)(F) of the Act. These two questions of fact must be established for the record by documentary 
evidence; neither the unsupported assertions of counsel nor the employer will suffice to establish eligibility. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 
1988). \ 
If the petitioner fails to establish either of these elements, the beneficiary will be deemed ineligible for 
classification as an L-1B intracompany transferee. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility. Matter of Brantigan, 11 
I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary is 
fully qualified for the benefit sought.- Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). In evaluating 
the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Id. The 
director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true. 
1. Supervision and Control 
The director did not dispute the claim that the petitioner will supervise and control the beneficiary's work. In 
response to the NOIR, the petitioner provided two separate agreements with and 
LLC, which indicated that any of the petitioner's employees will be supervised by the petitioner. 
The AAO notes that the agreement with LLC is dated after the filing of the instant petition. 
However, as the director did not specifically address this particular issue in the denial, the AAO will not 
assess whether the beneficiary's placement at the unaffiliated employer's worksite meets the conditions of 
section 214(c)(2)(F)(i) of the Act. 
2. Specialized Knowledge Specific to the Petitioning Employer 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
The petitioner, however, failed to provide relevant and probative evidence regarding its provision of a product 
. or service at the unaffiliated employer's worksite for which specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning 
employer is necessary. 
J 
The petitioner must demonstrate in the first instance that the beneficiary's offsite employment is connected 
with the provision of the petitioner's product or service which necessitates specialized knowledge that is 
specific to the petitioning employer. Section 214(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the Act. If the petitioner fails to prove this 
element, the beneficiary's employment will be deemed an impermissible arrangement to provide "labor for 
hire" under the terms of the L-1 Visa Reform Act. Id. 
In the instant matter, the petitioner did not identify the specific off-site location of the beneficiary's 
employment or the specific services he would be providing to the off-site employer. In response to the NOIR, 
the petitioner simply stated that "[beneficiary] provides consulting services to various shipyards in the [U.S.], 
including supervising and coordinating the activities of workers engaged in welding and cutting of products 
and structures. . . . Also, based on our revolutionary techniques, he analyzes the work orders and blueprints 
of local shipyards in order to determine the need for supplies and sequence of operations required." The 
director concluded that the beneficiary's placement at the worksite of the unaffiliated employer appears to be 
essentially an arrangement to provide labor for hire. Based on the description of the beneficiary's duties and 
the lack of evidence that the petitioner provided regarding the beneficiary's services in connection with the 
provision of a product or service directly related to the beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge, the AAO 
agrees with the director's finding that it appears the beneficiary will be providing technical support and 
enhancement to the client's pre-existing shipbuilding processes and methodologies. 
The evidence submitted fails to establish that the beneficiary's placement at the unaffiliated employer's 
worksite meets the conditions of Section 214(c)(2)(F)(ii) of the L-1 Visa Reform Act. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The petition will be denied and the appeal dismissed for the above stated reason·s, with each considered as an 
independent and alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving 
eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: . The appeal is dismissed.